Can We Really Exercise Free Will?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Why would God choose someone who is just as “totally depraved” per Calvinism and not the other who is just as “totally depraved”? Is the frozen chosen not as totally depraved? The more I think about Calvinism, the more I’m convinced it is a stupid false doctrine.
Perpetuated by those who choose to remain biblical illiterates. Tepid rebuttals consisting of hormonal opinions, infantile banter, and a sum total of 5 or 6 mis-apprehended misunderstood passages recited ad infinitum ad nauseum.
 
Why would God choose someone who is just as “totally depraved” per Calvinism and not the other who is just as “totally depraved”? Is the frozen chosen not as totally depraved? The more I think about Calvinism, the more I’m convinced it is a stupid false doctrine.
I was going to say:
"Perpetuated by useful idiots who choose to remain biblical illiterates."

But thought better of it and did the right thing and deleted the derogatory term "useful idiots".

Thank goodness I had my wits about me.
 
When I told Magenta that I wanted to stick with Scripture, I was speaking specifically to her because of the way she was engaging with me. Her posts have repeatedly included hard to read font colors, off putting images, and personal remarks about my character. In that situation, I was saying, in effect, “Let us please keep it to Bible verses and not all the extra stuff.”
More of your dishonesty. You constantly diverted from Scripture to speak of other things to condemn me and you know it but refuse to admit it. You never mention this fact, just act like it was me making personal remarks to you when you went off on me over several involved posts that you later characterized as brief when they were not. You went into great detail and it was all to condemn me. You are a nasty abusive dishonest man. That is your character and I hope you do something about it because you are not the nice guy you pretend to be and want others to believe you are. Also I repeatedly asked you questions about Biblical matters and you repeatedly ignored them to be abusive toward me while insisting I not speak of anything other than Scripture.
 
Oh, and I am not unaware of what is really going on here, either. I know that when someone has no solid response to what Scripture actually teaches, the next move is often to attack the other person instead of the argument. That is what is happening here. My words are being twisted into something I never meant, simply because my biblical points cannot be refuted.
That is your modus operandi to a T.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLDBUTNEW
The woman picture beside the scriptures?

I don't understand what you are getting at. The poster who does them is a woman so I don't see what the problem is if she is identifying women with the word of God. It's not like women are prohibited from learning or identifying with the word.

What exactly do you think she is suggesting by placing a woman in the picture?
 
Do you think it is Christlike for someone to do that?
I wonder if Blue thinks their behaviour was Christ like here. Different name, same poser.
I wonder if Calvinists have been eternally decreed to pass gas at the exact moment they do? 🤔
Maybe not, but I sure will be! *grunts and farts* 😃
I wonder how loud a fart would be or what would happen if everyone in the world farted at the same exact time?
*INCOMING!!* This a PSA: Even though we disagree, we all have one thing in common. Farts. That’s right. Farts. We all fart. Fart on, everyone!

And always remember— If ya smell it, ya dealt it!

Peace!
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLDBUTNEW
Perhaps leaving the thorn was also grace.

Grace was the means to overcome in hard times. I would have thought you would have suggested it was God's sovereignty that left the thorn there then grace to overcome. Isn't it God's sovereignty that leaves unelected men in their hopelessness?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jordon
Look carefully at how Paul opens Romans 9, and you’ll see that the subject is not individual predestination to heaven or hell. Romans 9:1–5 makes the context unmistakably national: Paul is heartbroken for Israel, his “kinsmen according to the flesh.” Romans 9–11 deals with the corporate destiny of Israel, not Calvinistic individual election.

Paul’s Repeated National References

9:3 — “my kinsmen according to the flesh”

9:4 — “the Israelites”

9:27 — “Though the number of the children of Israel…”

10:1 — “my heart’s desire…for Israel”

10:19 — “Israel”

10:21 — “to Israel he saith…”

11:1 — “I too am an Israelite”

11:2 — “his people which he foreknew”

11:7 — “Israel hath not obtained”

11:25 — “blindness in part happened to Israel”

Every example Paul uses is corporate.

Isaac vs. Ishmael – These represent descendants and nations, not individuals predestined to heaven or hell (Gen. 21–22).

Jacob vs. Esau – “Two NATIONS are in your womb” (Gen. 25:23). The passage is about national destiny and the Messianic lineage, not God eternally choosing one baby for heaven and the other for hell.

Pharaoh – A national representative. God “raised him up” to power (Rom. 9:17), not created him for damnation. Pharaoh represents Egypt, and striking Pharaoh meant striking Egypt (Ex. 3:19–20; 7–14; Ps. 105:26–28). “The king of Egypt will not let you go…so I will strike Egypt.” Notice the corporate pattern: king is representative of the nation. The people followed him, supported him, benefited from slavery, and shared in that national rebellion. Scripture itself says the Egyptians collectively oppressed Israel (not just Pharaoh): “the Egyptians mistreated us, afflicted us, and laid hard bondage on us.”(Deut. 26:6). Even after multiple plagues, the people still supported Pharaoh’s refusal to release Israel. There was no national repentance. They shared his pride, his defiance, and his oppression. Egypt enslaved God’s people, murdered Hebrew children (Ex. 1), refused God’s command through Moses (Ex. 5), exalted their gods above Yahweh (Ex. 12, 18). These were national sins, not just Pharaoh’s personal ones. Even after multiple plagues, the people still supported Pharaoh’s refusal to release Israel. When Israel did leave, the Egyptians even pursued them to force them back into slavery (Ex. 14).

Isaiah’s remnant prophecy – Paul quotes Isaiah to show that God’s judgment and mercy concern Israel as a nation, not individual predestination (Rom. 9:27–29; Isa. 10:22–23; 1:9). Isaiah says “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved.” Paul applies this corporately: the nation as a whole would face judgment, yet a remnant would survive. This is national preservation, not individual reprobation.

Hosea (“not My people / My people”) – Entire peoples and groups—Israel and the Gentiles—are in view (Hos. 1:10; 2:23; Rom. 9:24–26). Again, corporate categories, not individuals decreed to eternal destinations.

Paul shows that God’s choice of nations (Israel/Gentiles) in salvation history explains why believing Gentiles are included and unbelieving Jews excluded—while still fulfilling the promise to Abraham. That is the primary meaning of Romans 9–11.

Individual application exists, as Paul applies the same potter/clay principle individually in 2 Timothy 2:20–21:
but not the way Calvinism teaches.

Here’s an analogy:

Suppose a master potter owns a workshop.

He already has blueprints of what kinds of vessels he will honor and what kinds he will reject before he ever touches the clay. He had already concluded beforehand:

“If the clay stays soft and workable, I will make it a vessel for honor. If the clay hardens and refuses to be shaped, it will become a vessel of dishonor.” Those are his preordained criteria, not preordained individuals.

Now, consider two types of clay:

1. Clay #1 remains soft. It responds to the potter's touch. It yields. It can be molded. The potter says: "Even so, this vessel has become the very thing I resolved beforehand for all obedient clay—a vessel for honor."

2. Clay #2 sets. It resists. It refuses shaping. It becomes rigid. The potter says: "This vessel becomes exactly what I planned beforehand for all rebellious clay - a vessel for dishonor."

Notice: The potter had predetermined the result, not each piece of clay's identity or response. It is the response of the clay that determines its destiny.

That is Jeremiah 18 precisely that Paul is quoting in Romans 9.

Gentiles believed = vessels of mercy (Rom. 9:30)

Israel rejected faith = vessels of wrath (Rom. 9:31–33; 10:21; 11:7)

Gentiles = Clay that responded. Gentiles believed, and were formed into vessels of mercy (Rom. 9:24–26).

Israel = Clay that hardened. National Israel hardened itself. Cf. Rom. 9:31–33; 10:21; 11:7.

God shapes a nation based on its repentance or rebellion. Nothing in Jeremiah 18 or Romans 9 teaches unconditional predestination.

When we get to chapter 10, the mistake many Calvinists make is assuming the individual salvation language in Romans 10:9-13 means Paul changed subjects. Not so. He still speaks about corporate Israel:

“My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that THEY might be saved.” (10:1)

The application is individual (Rom. 10:9–13), but the subject remains national Israel.

Anyone in Israel—and anyone anywhere—can obey the gospel and be saved. Nothing about predestined individuals.

In conclusion: Paul's whole argument in Romans 9 is corporate. There's not one example in Romans 9 of God choosing an individual for personal salvation the way Calvinism teaches. Romans 9:1–5 is explicitly about Israel as a nation rejecting Christ. Romans 9:6–13 uses Jacob/Esau as nations, not isolated individual destinies. Romans 9:24–26 applies Hosea's prophecy about restoring Israel and calling the Gentiles. Romans 9:27-29 quotes Isaiah about the remnant of Israel and the destruction of a nation. Romans 10–11 continues discussing Israel and the Gentiles, not individual predestinations. Everything having to do with the main, primary meaning is corporate. Any individual application is secondary and flows from the corporate principle.
The will of the flesh lives in men And it's not a king.

There is the enabling strength of the lord in the heart of a person that is going to be filled with the spirit.

And if theres not then there put in the wilderness of the desert, where there flesh and there eyeballs get plucked out by the crows. When there maggot flesh dries out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLDBUTNEW
@cv5 this is what happens to the free will of the flesh


  • Jeremiah 16:4

    New International Version



    4 “They will die of deadly diseases. They will not be mourned or buried but will be like dung lying on the ground. They will perish by sword and famine, and their dead bodies will become food for the birds and the wild animals.”

Revelation 19

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
19 Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. 20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. 21 The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

Deuteronomy 28


49 The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. 51 They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or olive oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. 52 They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the Lord your God is giving you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLDBUTNEW
I don't understand what you are getting at. The poster who does them is a woman so I don't see what the problem is if she is identifying women with the word of God. It's not like women are prohibited from learning or identifying with the word.

What exactly do you think she is suggesting by placing a woman in the picture?

Nevermind kid, case closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sawdust
I am open to being corrected. If the Bible says it, then I accept what it says.
This is simply not true of you. The person without the Spirit of God has no Spiritual understanding of the Spiritual things of God. They are opposed to them. This is explicitly articulated in Scripture but you oppose it and make up your version of temporary enablement. You also claim salvation is open to all but then contradict yourself and say some have no chance since their names were not written in the Book of Life from before the foundation of the world. You say it is because God knew they would not believe but Scripture says He saves us not based on anything we have done. You also promote the idea that the gospel is not a spiritual matter counted among the deep things of God. Free willers love to distort Scripture truth like you do. They have to in order to uphold their un-Biblical beliefs and they resist correction just like you do. These truths include God's plan for redemption, righteousness, forgiveness, and the believer's union with Christ. They are considered "deep things" because they were hidden from the world's wisdom and were only revealed to believers through the Spirit of God, not by human effort or worldly knowledge. These things (redemption, righteousness, forgiveness, etc) are all part of the gospel message.
 
Look carefully at how Paul opens Romans 9, and you’ll see that the subject is not individual predestination to heaven or hell. Romans 9:1–5 makes the context unmistakably national: Paul is heartbroken for Israel, his “kinsmen according to the flesh.” Romans 9–11 deals with the corporate destiny of Israel, not Calvinistic individual election.

Paul’s Repeated National References

9:3 — “my kinsmen according to the flesh”

9:4 — “the Israelites”

9:27 — “Though the number of the children of Israel…”

10:1 — “my heart’s desire…for Israel”

10:19 — “Israel”

10:21 — “to Israel he saith…”

11:1 — “I too am an Israelite”

11:2 — “his people which he foreknew”

11:7 — “Israel hath not obtained”

11:25 — “blindness in part happened to Israel”

Every example Paul uses is corporate.

Isaac vs. Ishmael – These represent descendants and nations, not individuals predestined to heaven or hell (Gen. 21–22).

Jacob vs. Esau – “Two NATIONS are in your womb” (Gen. 25:23). The passage is about national destiny and the Messianic lineage, not God eternally choosing one baby for heaven and the other for hell.

Pharaoh – A national representative. God “raised him up” to power (Rom. 9:17), not created him for damnation. Pharaoh represents Egypt, and striking Pharaoh meant striking Egypt (Ex. 3:19–20; 7–14; Ps. 105:26–28). “The king of Egypt will not let you go…so I will strike Egypt.” Notice the corporate pattern: king is representative of the nation. The people followed him, supported him, benefited from slavery, and shared in that national rebellion. Scripture itself says the Egyptians collectively oppressed Israel (not just Pharaoh): “the Egyptians mistreated us, afflicted us, and laid hard bondage on us.”(Deut. 26:6). Even after multiple plagues, the people still supported Pharaoh’s refusal to release Israel. There was no national repentance. They shared his pride, his defiance, and his oppression. Egypt enslaved God’s people, murdered Hebrew children (Ex. 1), refused God’s command through Moses (Ex. 5), exalted their gods above Yahweh (Ex. 12, 18). These were national sins, not just Pharaoh’s personal ones. Even after multiple plagues, the people still supported Pharaoh’s refusal to release Israel. When Israel did leave, the Egyptians even pursued them to force them back into slavery (Ex. 14).

Isaiah’s remnant prophecy – Paul quotes Isaiah to show that God’s judgment and mercy concern Israel as a nation, not individual predestination (Rom. 9:27–29; Isa. 10:22–23; 1:9). Isaiah says “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant will be saved.” Paul applies this corporately: the nation as a whole would face judgment, yet a remnant would survive. This is national preservation, not individual reprobation.

Hosea (“not My people / My people”) – Entire peoples and groups—Israel and the Gentiles—are in view (Hos. 1:10; 2:23; Rom. 9:24–26). Again, corporate categories, not individuals decreed to eternal destinations.

Paul shows that God’s choice of nations (Israel/Gentiles) in salvation history explains why believing Gentiles are included and unbelieving Jews excluded—while still fulfilling the promise to Abraham. That is the primary meaning of Romans 9–11.

Individual application exists, as Paul applies the same potter/clay principle individually in 2 Timothy 2:20–21:
but not the way Calvinism teaches.

Here’s an analogy:

Suppose a master potter owns a workshop.

He already has blueprints of what kinds of vessels he will honor and what kinds he will reject before he ever touches the clay. He had already concluded beforehand:

“If the clay stays soft and workable, I will make it a vessel for honor. If the clay hardens and refuses to be shaped, it will become a vessel of dishonor.” Those are his preordained criteria, not preordained individuals.

Now, consider two types of clay:

1. Clay #1 remains soft. It responds to the potter's touch. It yields. It can be molded. The potter says: "Even so, this vessel has become the very thing I resolved beforehand for all obedient clay—a vessel for honor."

2. Clay #2 sets. It resists. It refuses shaping. It becomes rigid. The potter says: "This vessel becomes exactly what I planned beforehand for all rebellious clay - a vessel for dishonor."

Notice: The potter had predetermined the result, not each piece of clay's identity or response. It is the response of the clay that determines its destiny.

That is Jeremiah 18 precisely that Paul is quoting in Romans 9.

Gentiles believed = vessels of mercy (Rom. 9:30)

Israel rejected faith = vessels of wrath (Rom. 9:31–33; 10:21; 11:7)

Gentiles = Clay that responded. Gentiles believed, and were formed into vessels of mercy (Rom. 9:24–26).

Israel = Clay that hardened. National Israel hardened itself. Cf. Rom. 9:31–33; 10:21; 11:7.

God shapes a nation based on its repentance or rebellion. Nothing in Jeremiah 18 or Romans 9 teaches unconditional predestination.

When we get to chapter 10, the mistake many Calvinists make is assuming the individual salvation language in Romans 10:9-13 means Paul changed subjects. Not so. He still speaks about corporate Israel:

“My heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that THEY might be saved.” (10:1)

The application is individual (Rom. 10:9–13), but the subject remains national Israel.

Anyone in Israel—and anyone anywhere—can obey the gospel and be saved. Nothing about predestined individuals.

In conclusion: Paul's whole argument in Romans 9 is corporate. There's not one example in Romans 9 of God choosing an individual for personal salvation the way Calvinism teaches. Romans 9:1–5 is explicitly about Israel as a nation rejecting Christ. Romans 9:6–13 uses Jacob/Esau as nations, not isolated individual destinies. Romans 9:24–26 applies Hosea's prophecy about restoring Israel and calling the Gentiles. Romans 9:27-29 quotes Isaiah about the remnant of Israel and the destruction of a nation. Romans 10–11 continues discussing Israel and the Gentiles, not individual predestinations. Everything having to do with the main, primary meaning is corporate. Any individual application is secondary and flows from the corporate principle.
this is what happens to kings men of the flesh

Revelation 19

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings
 
this is what happens to kings men of the flesh

Revelation 19

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings

Including all heretics, sinners, etc. - basically unsaved ppl
 
Doubtless what this commentator intends to convey is the idea that primary emphasis is directed to the person of the portrait first and foremost. All else is secondary, tertiary or trivial by comparison, this by methodical intent, and habitually.

I see. I guess I was not viewing it from that perspective. I'm a gamer girl and find it difficult to play games where the protagonist is a male as I don't identify as being a man. I figured @Magenta was using a picture of a woman because she is a woman and is identifying herself with the word.